Canon EOS R Series Cameras

I’m scanning TP for insights on the R5. I am specifically interested in Astro experience. I’m aware that the R6 is supposedly more capable in low light, but I really like the look of the R5 - the EVF looks like it’d be good for nighttime and the build seems more solid. So keen to hear any R5 astro thoughts from anyone.
 
daveloslynch said:
I’m scanning TP for insights on the R5. I am specifically interested in Astro experience. I’m aware that the R6 is supposedly more capable in low light, but I really like the look of the R5 - the EVF looks like it’d be good for nighttime and the build seems more solid. So keen to hear any R5 astro thoughts from anyone.
Click to expand...
amazingsky.net

Testing the Canon R6 for Astrophotography

In an extensive technical blog, I put the Canon R6 mirrorless camera through its paces for the demands of astrophotography. Every major camera manufacturer, with the lone exception of stalwar…
amazingsky.net amazingsky.net

This is an interesting read which covers mainly the R6 but anecdoteably says that the R5 performs as well. It has smaller pixels than the R6 so could end up being noisier.
 
Found another quirk today while shooting superbikes. Put the Sigma 105mm f1.4 on the R3 for on the grid and found that despite the camera having a max speed of 1/64000sec in aperture priority with electronic shutter it still tops out at 1/8000sec as if it was on mechanical. Have double checked all the settings and cant find anything i have missed but wondered if anyone else had found this problem?

Edited to add i found it wont go above 1/8000sec in AV mode LOL

1/64000 sec shutter speed in TV and M modes only.
 
Last edited:
I used my R5 at max ISO last night was pleased how well the shots came out considering how low the light was (photographing a band )
when I get a chance I’ll post some pics up
Will run them through DXO deep prime
 
Slowly getting used to the R3 but keep trying to review images in the viewfinder of my other cameras now!!!!

Find subject tracking for bikes works better when set to people than vehicles or at least for me.

Most the togs trackside now are using R3's and all still trying to get their heads around settings.

All these except the one of Tom Sykes are with the 300 f2.8 IS L MKII and sometimes also the 1.4 or 2x tc MKIII but all should still have exif data attached if anyone is interested.

i-7mpGMB8-XL.jpg


i-chsjZN2-XL.jpg


i-qKxssvw-XL.jpg


i-hdqdhzx-XL.jpg


i-HkLvvPr-XL.jpg


i-MJh3579-XL.jpg
 
Great results with the R3 Glen, interesting that you're finding tracking better when set to people for shooting the bikes. (Exif not showing for me). It's something I'll try with my R5, I find the vehicle tracking pretty good, though struggled with focussing last week, but think part of that was heat coming off the track. Be interested in what you've found works best. These are some from previous occasions.

0V6A2663 Peter Hickman FHO Racing BMW Silverstone BSB Test by Neil, on Flickr
0V6A0142 Josh Brookes Visiontrack Ducati BSB Cadwell Park by Neil, on Flickr
0V6A1184 Bradley Ray Rich Energy OMG Racing BMW by Neil, on Flickr
 
Neil. said:
Great results with the R3 Glen, interesting that you're finding tracking better when set to people for shooting the bikes. (Exif not showing for me). It's something I'll try with my R5, I find the vehicle tracking pretty good, though struggled with focussing last week, but think part of that was heat coming off the track. Be interested in what you've found works best. These are some from previous occasions.

0V6A2663 Peter Hickman FHO Racing BMW Silverstone BSB Test by Neil, on Flickr
0V6A0142 Josh Brookes Visiontrack Ducati BSB Cadwell Park by Neil, on Flickr
0V6A1184 Bradley Ray Rich Energy OMG Racing BMW by Neil, on Flickr
Click to expand...

So much on the R3 that can be customised I'm struggling remembering what buttons I have set to do what lol.
Have eye A/F on the rear A/F button and a custom set for central A/F point and 1/1000 second on another for if I am doing slow pans and someone falls off.
Turning subject tracking on and off in the menu compared to on the front custom function button behaves very differently and just found vehicle tracking didn't grab the rider I wanted every time in pack shots.
 
Gadget-Guy said:
So much on the R3 that can be customised I'm struggling remembering what buttons I have set to do what lol.
Have eye A/F on the rear A/F button and a custom set for central A/F point and 1/1000 second on another for if I am doing slow pans and someone falls off.
Turning subject tracking on and off in the menu compared to on the front custom function button behaves very differently and just found vehicle tracking didn't grab the rider I wanted every time in pack shots.
Click to expand...
Thanks for info Glen, think I need to experiment further.
 
@bepop - turn airplane mode off then on again and switch the camera off.
I think it needs to be switched off then on to register any change in settings.
 
Buck said:
@bepop - turn airplane mode off then on again and switch the camera off.
I think it needs to be switched off then on to register any change in settings.
Click to expand...
Thank you @Buck. I was in a bit of a panic as it was a paid job and it was my first time shooting with the R5 as my main camera.

I will go and have a read of the manual. It is still there - perhaps the message has always been there and I've just never scrolled to that part of the info before? I have been playing with wifi, so I was worried I had accidentally changed something.

Anyway, it all went okay in the end... although Photo Mechanic hung on me when I was importing the photos and the file naming went a bit awry - funny how these things only ever happen when you have a deadline :rolleyes:
 
robinsslee said:
Spring is here, bluebells definitely peaking now.


View attachment 350365

View attachment 350366
Click to expand...
Nice photos. I've missed the bluebells since the woodland I visited decided to 'manage' the bluebells as a tourist attraction. They added twig/stick barriers to try to stop people walking amongst the bluebells. It was a nice idea trying to stop the idiots that didn't really care about anyone else other than their self, but it backfired spectacularly as brambles soon grew amongst the stick barriers and by the next year had spread everywhere enveloping the bluebells and destroyed views like you have.
 
I''ve finally made a decision on a long lens! After looking through my previous images there was just something about the images taken with longer/faster lenses like the 300mm f2.8 and 200-400 f4 I had on Nikon. One of the reasons to move from sony to canon was to get a lens that sony don't currently offer that's faster than f4. The Canon 300mm f2.8 Mk II looks to be the better cost option over the 400mm f4 DO II. Its only 300g heavier than the 400mm f4 and there isn't much in size. The 300mm f2.8 can become a 420mm f4 lens with a 1.4 teleconverter and has the added f2.8 advantage over the 400mm f4. It will be 500g-100g lighter than the Nikon 300mm f2.8 and 200-400 f4 so bit of a weight saving to what I've been used to. I just need to get used to carting about a heavier lens and just see the benefit of improved IQ and AF speed when shooting in low light.
 
rob-nikon said:
I''ve finally made a decision on a long lens! After looking through my previous images there was just something about the images taken with longer/faster lenses like the 300mm f2.8 and 200-400 f4 I had on Nikon. One of the reasons to move from sony to canon was to get a lens that sony don't currently offer that's faster than f4. The Canon 300mm f2.8 Mk II looks to be the better cost option over the 400mm f4 DO II. Its only 300g heavier than the 400mm f4 and there isn't much in size. The 300mm f2.8 can become a 420mm f4 lens with a 1.4 teleconverter and has the added f2.8 advantage over the 400mm f4. It will be 500g-100g lighter than the Nikon 300mm f2.8 and 200-400 f4 so bit of a weight saving to what I've been used to. I just need to get used to carting about a heavier lens and just see the benefit of improved IQ and AF speed when shooting in low light.
Click to expand...
The 300 2.8 is an amazing lens, apart from when I’m doing macro it’s my main lens (mk2)
It works really well with the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters as well
Make sure you get the version 3 TCs they are optimised for the canon long primes
 
rob-nikon said:
I''ve finally made a decision on a long lens! After looking through my previous images there was just something about the images taken with longer/faster lenses like the 300mm f2.8 and 200-400 f4 I had on Nikon. One of the reasons to move from sony to canon was to get a lens that sony don't currently offer that's faster than f4. The Canon 300mm f2.8 Mk II looks to be the better cost option over the 400mm f4 DO II. Its only 300g heavier than the 400mm f4 and there isn't much in size. The 300mm f2.8 can become a 420mm f4 lens with a 1.4 teleconverter and has the added f2.8 advantage over the 400mm f4. It will be 500g-100g lighter than the Nikon 300mm f2.8 and 200-400 f4 so bit of a weight saving to what I've been used to. I just need to get used to carting about a heavier lens and just see the benefit of improved IQ and AF speed when shooting in low light.
Click to expand...

Looks like we’re both sorted then.

WEX (finally) had another mint condition 500mm turn up.
So it looks like I’ll be finding out for myself as to how ‘easy’ they are to handhold :D
 
rob-nikon said:
Nice photos. I've missed the bluebells since the woodland I visited decided to 'manage' the bluebells as a tourist attraction. They added twig/stick barriers to try to stop people walking amongst the bluebells. It was a nice idea trying to stop the idiots that didn't really care about anyone else other than their self, but it backfired spectacularly as brambles soon grew amongst the stick barriers and by the next year had spread everywhere enveloping the bluebells and destroyed views like you have.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. I understand the branch barriers and I also been into some locals that shouting at photographers that goes beyond the barrier. Then you get this huge group of Chinese tourists swarming the woods with their loud voices echoing the woods too. This is in London by the way and some other woods are pretty much quiet. The famous one in Berkhamsted is same as last year, they do not trim the brambles and they overgrown the bluebells now sigh :confused:
 
James Thomas 75 said:
Looks like we’re both sorted then.

WEX (finally) had another mint condition 500mm turn up.
So it looks like I’ll be finding out for myself as to how ‘easy’ they are to handhold :D
Click to expand...
Oh nice one and price too, my 500mm is the same condition as Wex bar the hood (a little sign of use) ... time to pack the lens up and up on eBay.
 
robinsslee said:
Oh nice one and price too, my 500mm is the same condition as Wex bar the hood (a little sign of use) ... time to pack the lens up and up on eBay.
Click to expand...

I didn’t realise you currently have the 500.

Would you mind me asking which bag you use to lug yours around in please?

I’ve been scanning online for a few days now. It seems that the Thinktank glass limo is the perfect fit with a pro / gripped body.
But I’d imagine that’d be slightly too small; what with the need of the RF adapter attached to it.
 
Last edited:
James Thomas 75 said:
I didn’t realise you currently have the 500.

Would you mind me asking which bag you use to lug yours around in please?

I’ve been scanning online for a few days now. It seems that the Thinktank glass taxi is the perfect fit with a pro / gripped body. But I’d imagine that’d be slightly too small; what with the need of the adapter on it.
Click to expand...
I had the glass taxi years ago with the Nikon 300mm f2.8 lens. It fitted that lens perfectly. I ended up moving to f stop to get one bag where I could swap out the ICU’s whilst keeping everything else in the bag.

This review seems to say the Nikon 500mm f4 whilst attached to the camera is a tight fit so I’d expect the canon probably won’t fit with the adapter needed too.

photographylife.com

Think Tank Glass Limo Review

photographylife.com photographylife.com
 
rob-nikon said:
I had the glass taxi years ago with the Nikon 300mm f2.8 lens. It fitted that lens perfectly. I ended up moving to f stop to get one bag where I could swap out the ICU’s whilst keeping everything else in the bag.

This review seems to say the Nikon 500mm f4 whilst attached to the camera is a tight fit so I’d expect the canon probably won’t fit with the adapter needed too.

photographylife.com

Think Tank Glass Limo Review

photographylife.com photographylife.com
Click to expand...

Thanks very much.

Yeah, I think that’s the one I meant.
Their library photos used for it seem to show quite a snug fit with the 500.
So it’ll obviously be no good with the adapter too. Let alone with the possibility of a 1.4x attached as well at some point…

The Lowepro 600 aw trekker looks a good bet. But I think that may bury it - and be a bit too overkill :D
 
James Thomas 75 said:
I didn’t realise you currently have the 500.

Would you mind me asking which bag you use to lug yours around in please?

I’ve been scanning online for a few days now. It seems that the Thinktank glass limo is the perfect fit with a pro / gripped body.
But I’d imagine that’d be slightly too small; what with the need of the RF adapter attached to it.
Click to expand...
I use Mindshift Moose Peterson MP-1 V2.0 in which I can fit the lens, adapter and R5 with reversed hood, pretty snug though.
 
James Thomas 75 said:
Thanks very much.

Yeah, I think that’s the one I meant.
Their library photos used for it seem to show quite a snug fit with the 500.
So it’ll obviously be no good with the adapter too. Let alone with the possibility of a 1.4x attached as well at some point…

The Lowepro 600 aw trekker looks a good bet. But I think that may bury it - and be a bit too overkill :D
Click to expand...
Lowpro flipside 500 fits the long teles well (up to 600 f4 m2)
 
TimHughes said:
Lowpro flipside 500 fits the long teles well (up to 600 f4 m2)
Click to expand...
Thanks, Tim.

I’ve looked into the flipside bags. But this fool hasn’t really had a healthy relationship with these side opening bags in the past :D

Nothing major. But I have been known to ‘forget’ that I’ve not zipped it back up when shooting. So I’ve always had the top loading rucksacks because of that very reason.

If it comes down to those having the best fit. Then I’ll maybe have to change my way of thinking.
But I’d rather have a top loading bag, if possible…
 
What’s everyone’s thoughts of the Canon EF 17-40 f4 lens on the R6 (maybe R5 in the future)? I’d like a wider lens for landscapes than the RF24-105 I currently have but it’s probably not a lens I will use that often so it’s very hard to justify the high cost of the RF 14-35 f4 at this time.

I’ve found an excellent/mint condition 17-40 f4 with 12 month warranty for £321 which seems like a good price for something I probably won’t use that often but the low cost makes me think there’s a reason why it’s so low.
 
The 17-40 is an OK L lens but can be a little soft especially in the corners.

if you can I would go for the 16-35. Much better and I sold my 17-40 for the 16-35 as mine was always just OK whilst the newer lens is much much sharper IMO.
 
rob-nikon said:
What’s everyone’s thoughts of the Canon EF 17-40 f4 lens on the R6 (maybe R5 in the future)? I’d like a wider lens for landscapes than the RF24-105 I currently have but it’s probably not a lens I will use that often so it’s very hard to justify the high cost of the RF 14-35 f4 at this time.

I’ve found an excellent/mint condition 17-40 f4 with 12 month warranty for £321 which seems like a good price for something I probably won’t use that often but the low cost makes me think there’s a reason why it’s so low.
Click to expand...
The only L lens I’ve owned that I wouldn’t recommend
If you can’t stretch to one of the later models, which are head and shoulders better, think about a Tamron 17-35, half the price and a better lens than the old Canon L. I’m sure there are other 3rd party alternatives too.

(I think my Tamron was about £120 and I wouldn’t swap it for a mint 17-40L)
 
daveloslynch said:
I’m scanning TP for insights on the R5. I am specifically interested in Astro experience. I’m aware that the R6 is supposedly more capable in low light, but I really like the look of the R5 - the EVF looks like it’d be good for nighttime and the build seems more solid. So keen to hear any R5 astro thoughts from anyone.
Click to expand...

a bit late to the party as I've been away in the netherlands for a week. Shot a couple of astro with my R5 (+ Laowa 12mm F2.8) both there and in wales. No problems. Single shot astro at 2 minutes ISO 1600 results in clear images with no need to stack, can still push the image in quite extreme fashions.

This one was stacked. Foreground unstacked

5G4A6802-Edit-2.jpg

unstacked but facing north east hence lack of milky way definition
5G4A0601-Edit-2.jpg

can't recall this one. Think it was stacked.
5G4A0827-Edit.jpg
 
Rob / James / Robin

as you can see the Action X 70 with the XL DV insert I have knocking about is not cutting the mustard

I want a backpack for an R5/convertor/1.4 extender/500f4ii all connected rather than assembling it on site

reading loads of reviews and I now seem to be hovering between the Lowepro lenstrekker 600 and Vanguard Alta Sky 66

leaning towards the Lowepro looks better built to me but is heavier

Like many around here I am a bit of a bag hoarder and whichever bag I buy I am in for a load of grief

I just need to make sure I get the right one and any help appreciated

which would folks around here go for and does anyone have any experience to help me decide?

thanks

DaveIMG_1280.JPG
 
I had my 500f4ii plus 1Dx2 in a Thinktank airport limo; don’t think I ever put the 1.4 converter on it. Not sure if that helps.
 
thanks Chipper

was that the glass limo (I like think tank / mind shift and the smaller bag does appeal)

and was that a tight fit? - I have an adapter to accomodate

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top